THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Published by the Colonial Coin Collectors Club, Inc.
March 1995
Volume 3 Number 1
Officers and Elected Personnel
The Colonial Coin Collectors Club, Inc.
C4 National Officers:
President Angel O. Pietri, M.D. Treasurer Donald A. Mituzas
Secretary John J. Kraljevich, Jr.
C4 Regional Representatives;
Region 1 : (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, Quebec, Canadian Maritimes)
Russell Smith
Colonial Trading Company, Inc.
Region 2 : (NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE, DC)
Dennis Wierzba
Region 3 : (VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TN, PR)
John M. Griffee
Region 4 : (OH, IN, IL, MI, WI, KY, lO, ND, SD, MN, KS, NB, Ont.,
Manitoba)
Ken Mote
Continued on Inside Back Cover
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
PubEshed by the Colonial Coin Collectors Club, Inc.
March, 1995 Volume 3, Number 1
From Your Editor’s Desk
Welcome to the first issue of our club newsletter for 1995. Your club
officers and I have received many positive comments about the new
format for the newsletter. For one shining example, take the comment
from Eric P. Newman, a researcher whose name should be very famil-
iar to all of us. Eric writes to say “The C4 Newsletter has grown into a
magazine. Wow!"
This issue contains an original article on Massachusetts silver coins by
James Skalbe, some miscellaneous thoughts and suggestions, book and
article notices, and the ever popular auction reviews column!
If the issue seems shorter than you’d like it to be, then how about
writing something to fill out the next issue? Editors of club publica-
tions like this are always in need of articles. Your newsletter, like your
club, will only be as good and as interesting as you, the membership,
make it. Don’t sit back and wait for the other guy to take the first
step. Take it yourself, you’ll get there faster!
Your Editor assures the C4 membership that he has not set up a false
religion and that he does not expect to be addressed as “Eminence" or
“Bonze”. Rather, your Editor’s unlooked for apotheosis simply proved
his critics’ apocolocyntosis.
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3. No. I
MARCH, 1995
Finally, your Editor must announce, not without some real sadness,
that he has decided he must finally retire as your Editor effective with
the publication of the June issue of this newsletter. Most C4 members
will recall that your Editor tried to resign once before, at last year’s
ANA convention. He was asked by the C4 leadership to stay on until a
replacement could be found, and he agreed. As of the upcoming June
issue a year will have gone by since then. Your Editor helped found
this club and happily wrote the first few newsletters, himself, in the
hopes that a little extra effort might be all that was needed to get the
club off to a running start. His efforts, and those of all the dedicated
men and women who helped the club grow into what it has become,
have all paid off. Our C4 club is now a powerful force to be reckoned
with in colonial numismatics. Dealers want to use our mailing list
when they have coins to sell. Our sponsorship of an official C4 auction
gained us the benefit of an up and coming auction firm for our first
annual convention, something that even EAC can’t point to with
pride!
Your Editor handed over the presidency of our club when the first
elections were held, passing on the torch to your first elected president,
Angel Pietri. Now, he feels it’s time to pass on the editorship to a new
hand, as well. The club has matured since it was founded, around a
dinner table in Orlando two years ago, and it’s time for your Editor to
give a new hand his/her chance.
President Pietri is actively searching for a new editor. When he has
found a suitable candidate that individual’s name will be appropriately
announced in these pages.
Message From the President
The last thing on my mind when I took over as president of C4 back in
July, 1994 was that we may be holding a convention this year. As a
matter of fact, I was wandering what my role in the club would be,
and what would become of the club. Yet, at this moment, the con-
vention seems a definite reality, and plans for it continue at full speed.
We should have a very lively bourse as well as the 3rd New Jersey
symposium, other educational forums, a major auction, and exhibit
4
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Voi. 3, No. 1
MARCH. 1995
tables. There is a short questionnaire at the end of this newsletter
regarding the convention. Please take a minute to answer it and
return it to me.
However, there has been an important change! Instead of White
Plains, NY, the convention will be held in Pennsauken, NJ together
with the MANA Convention (Mid Atlantic Numismatic Association).
Why the change? It seems that the White Plains Convention Center
was not very interested in our presence. They put up a whole series of
roadblocks in our way which forced us to abandon it. Pennsauken is in
the greater Cherry Hill area, just outside Philadelphia. I've been told
it is about a 20 minute ride from the Philadelphia airport.
There are two hotels for the convention located in Mt. Laurel, NJ.
They are about 3 miles from the exhibit hall.
1) Marriot Courtyard ( 609- 273-4400 )
1000 Century Parkway
Mt. Laurel, NJ
Rates: Single- $69.00; Double- $79 00
2) Clarion Hotel ( 609- 234-7300 )
915 Rt. 73 at I 295
Mt. Laurel, NJ
Rates: Single or double- $59-00
MANA is trying to arrange for a shuttle between the hotels and the
exhibit hall, but at this time it is not yet certain.
CALL FOR AUCTION CONSIGNMENTS
Anyone thinking about selling colonial coins should consider consign-
ing to the October Auction at the convention. It should be a great
sale. We already have over 200 lots, including the John Griffee col-
lection of New Jersey state coinage. It contains 90 varieties, one of the
largest groupings of New Jersey's ever formed. There is also a large ,
important consignment of Connecticut state coppers in this sale. The
sale will probably be heavily attended by both collectors and dealers.
5
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
V«l. 3, No. 1
MARCH. 1995
SO bidding should be very spirited. As colonial sales go, I am sure this
will be a classic. Furthermore, the club will benefit since McCawley
and Grellman have agreed to donate 2 % of the sale proceeds to the
club. So if you are considering selling, call McCawley and Grellman or
Tom Rinaldo to discuss it.
CONVENTION SPONSORS
We currently expect to sell enough bourse tables, together with the
Auction revenue, to cover the majority of the convention costs. How-
ever, we could use donations! I would exhort all those members who
can afford it to consider becoming convention sponsors. Any amount
from 1 10.00 up would be very welcome. If you feel so inclined, please
make contribution checks to ^lonial Coin Collectors Club, and mail it
to Don Mituzas or myself.
OTHER MATTERS
The next big meeting of the club will be at the EAC convention in
Cincinnati. Many of you will be there. We will have a club table
there. 1 will be taking my camera to start photographing coins for the
club’s photofile. I am working currently on the final cost of the pho-
tos, but it should be between 13-4.00. I hope to see a lot of you there.
Bring your coins.
As for the mailings to the membership from commercial entities ( two
so far ), nobody has complained to me directly. But I have heard some
distant rumblings. Others have told me we give the service too
cheaply. Please bear two things in mind. I am not a publicist and have
no experience in this type of venture. Second, this is in the nature of
advertisement, and does not represent club endorsement. In any
event, before any further mailings are done, this will be discussed with
the Board members during the EAC convention. If anyone has any
strong feelings about this, please let me or your regional V.P. know.
If you have any thoughts on any matter relevant to the club, please
feel free to contact me. Remember that this is your club.
6
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, N«>. I
MARCH, 1995
Book News and Reviews
An interesting article on early American copper can be found in the
February issue of The Magazine Antiques. It was written by Donald L.
Fennimore, who is curator of metals at the Henry Francis du Pont
Winterthur Museum. The article is a brief survey of copper making
and makers in colonial and early federal days. It is chiefly useful for its
lovely color illustrations, one if which is the 1813 Lawrence naval
medal by Fiirst (Julian NA-14, struck ca. 1822). No coiners' names are
mentioned, however, which is not really that surprising when you
remember just how small and narrowly focused our hobby is.
If you're interested in learning more about early American copper and
coppersmiths there’s a good book, now long out of print, on just that
subject. Entitled Early American Copper, Tin, and Brass, it was written
by Henry J. Kauffman and published by Medill McBride Company of
New York in 1950. It’s a large format 112 page volume heavily illus-
trated with good quality black and white photographs. Your Editor
found his copy in a used bookshop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire
and was happy to buy it for $40 in as new condition complete with
dustjacket. This can be a useful and, at times, intriguing book. For
example, on page 37 we read advertisements from a William Bailey
dated 1792 and a William P. Atlee dated 1795. Those are two sur-
names that should be well known to most of us. Were they related to
the Bailey and Atlee’s we are somewhat familiar with.^ Your Editor
leaves that up to better genealogists than he.
There’s a new book just been published by Madison House in Madison,
WI. It’s entitled George Clinton: Yeoman Politician of the New Republic and
was written by John P. Kaminski. Dr. Kaminski is founder and direc-
tor of The center for the Study of the American Constitution at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Kaminski’s new book is a
political biography of George Clinton, twice vice president of the U.S.
(under Jefferson and Madison), governor of New York for seven terms
(six of them consecutive), and the state’s leading mover and shaker
until his death in 1812. Anyone who’s ever wondered who the Clinton
was that’s on the 1787 so-called Clinton Cent will learn more than s/he
ever hoped to from the new biography. Remember, it’s a political
biography so unless you’re particularly interested in New York
7
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3. Ni>. 1
MARCH, 1995
“politricks” of the 1783-1812 period this is not the sort of book one
curls up to read. As a research tool, however, it’s highly important.
The book costs $35.95 and is available from the publishers, telephone
608-244-6210.
Also by Dr. Kaminski is a book that will interest currency and fiscal
paper collectors. It’s his Ph.D. dissertation and is entitled Paper Politics:
The Northern State Loan-Offices During the Confederation, 1785-1790. The
book runs to 302 pages and includes a good bibliography. Each chap-
ter is heavily annotated at its end. There is, unfortunately, no index.
Kaminski examines the experiences of New York, New Jersey, Penn-
sylvania, and Rhode Island and decides that the stability of each state’s
paper currency was based almost entirely upon the determination of a
state’s political parties to keep it stable. Rhode Island’s currency
depreciated almost as soon as it was issued while New York’s main-
tained most of its value until the Constitution was published.
Kaminski concludes that “In each case, something other than the
inherent deficiency of the currency stimulated the depreciation.” Paper
Politics is available from Garland Publishing, Inc., 1-800-627-6273, for
$20 plus shipping.
If C4 members run across a book they think worth telling others
about, why not write a couple of lines about it and send them in to
your Editor. He’s not the only one of us who reads so share vour favor-
ite coin books, histories, etc., just so long as they're about colonial or
early federal times or technical numismatic topics.
As a start, C4 Region 7 representative Bill McKivor offers us his
thoughts on what might constitute a “General Interest Colonial Ref-
erence Library”. Bill writes that "These are volumes I believe the
beginner or novice should own. Taken all together, for a cost of less
than $250, these volumes would form a super general reference
library...! can almost guarantee reading these books will lead to further
study, greater knowledge, and plenty of enjoyment. These volumes
should be in everyone’s collection for reference and study, and are
listed by topic.”
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH, 1995
A General Booklist for Colonial Collectors
by
Bill McKivor
I. Coins
1. A Guide Book of United States Coins. 48th. edition. 1995.
$7 and up.
By R.S. Yeoman. Edited by Ken Bressett. The “RedBook". Designed
to be a very general guide. For instance, three listings are to be found
in this book for the Talbot, Allum & Lee cents, but 26 listings will be
found in the following book.
2. Walter Breen’s Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and
Colonial Coins. 1988. $75 to $100.
By Walter Breen. The most useful general reference work on colonials
yet published. About the only place to find expanded listings and
varieties of many series, such as Sommer Islands, Higley Coppers,
Talbot, Allum, & Lee cents, and many others. The major work to date
on French colonials. Though Breen uses some imagination in his his-
torical sketches, this volume is a must for the colonial collector.
3. The Early Coins of America. First published 1875, 1878,
best reprint is Quarterman’s (1983), others include TAMS
(1965). $25 and up.
By Sylvester S. Crosby. The classic work on early American coinage,
this book is indispensable. My first copy is so full of notes I had to buy
a second one. Every colonial collector should own a “Crosby."
4. Struck Copies of Early American Coins. Originally pub-
lished in the January, 1952 issue of The Coin Collector's Journal^
issued in booklet form by Wayte Raymond. $10 to $15-
By Richard Kenny. Has information about and plates of struck copies
of colonial coins made by Bolen, Idler, Dickeson, Elder, and others.
Why have I included this booklet in this list? Because it’s a neat little
booklet and it might just save you from buying a copy as a genuine
coin; or it might just interest you in collecting the copies, themselves!
9
FHE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH, 1995
II. Paper Money
5. The Early Paper Money of America. 3rd. edition. 1990.
$35, or so.
By Eric P. Newman. Illustrated throughout, this volume is indispen-
sible for paper money collectors and gives much needed historical
perspective to collectors. The standard reference of all regular issue
colonial notes. A book all colonial era collectors should own.
6. The Price of Liberty. 1983. $30.
By William G. Anderson. Subtitled “The Public Debt of the American
Revolution”, this book is in two sections, the first covering the histori-
cal background. The second is Anderson’s catalogue of the R.M.
Smythe Collection of Revolutionary War debt certificates. These trea-
sury notes and loan certificates were not currency issues so are not
listed by Newman. This is the only catalogue of these rare certificates,
which are sometimes confused with currency issues. A well researched
work, nicely illustrated, and invaluable to the collector in identifying
these rare pieces.
III. Medals
7. American Colonial History Illustrated by Contemporary
Medals. First published 1894, best reprint is Quarterman's
1972 (with plates). $25 and up.
By C. Wyllys Betts (posthumously), edited by William T.R. Marvin
and Lyman Low. Exactly what the title says, lots of history and many
fascinating and important medals. The indispensible, basic reference
and still not replaced or challenged by anything else in the field.
8 Medallic Portraits of Washington. First published 1885.
Best reprint is Krause Publications, 1965. $20, or so.
By W.S. Baker. A catalogue of Washington pieces, coins, and medals
up to 1876.
9. Medallic Portraits of Washington. 1994. $25, or so.
Edited by Russell Rulau and George Fuld, this is a reworking of bak-
er's 1876 book and many collectors now consider it to be the standard
reference. Either this volume, or Baker, himself, is recommended.
10
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3. No. 1
MARCH. 1995
IV. Tokens
10. Early American Tokens. 3rd. edition. 1991. About |15.
By Russell Rulau. Tokens issued in or for the colonies/United States,
from the early 1700’s to about 1830. Really, the only easily obtainable
reference work on the subject. Now available as part of a larger work
on tokens, the original will do for the colonial era.
That’s Bill’s suggested general library. He writes that buying nine of
the above books “...is money well spent. These books have given me a
great deal of enjoyment, and have saved me far more than their cost.
Happy reading.”
What’s your favorite book or auction catalogue? Bill doesn’t go into
catalogues in his list because he’s aimed it for the real beginner in
colonials. Auction catalogues can be a little scary to the beginner
because the descriptions of coins seem to assume a lot of knowledge.
Auction catalogues can be one of the best sources for the latest and
most advanced knowledge about rarity ratings, condition census
information, past auction records, and history. Walter Breen’s cata-
loguing of the 1975 EAC sale, for example, represented the high point
of knowledge about Connecticut coppers. Dave Bowers’ sale catalogues
for the Norweb Collection (1987-88) include information about almost
all kinds of colonials that isn’t in Breen’s Encyclopedia. Bowers & Mer-
ena’s and Stack’s sales of state coppers from the F.C.C. Boyd Estate
(1990-date) have rewritten rarity, condition census, and much of the
history about Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut coppers.
All of the auction catalogues your Editor has mentioned above are
available. Only Breen’s EAC catalogue will be expensive, running
about $75 for a good copy. The others are all either still in print or can
be had for a small sum from numismatic booksellers. Remember that
the field of colonial numismatics is vast and complicated and no one
book and no single researcher can ever hope to cover it all. Auction
catalogues are like scholarly scientific journals: they bring out new
facts and theories not found elsewhere in books and often include cut-
ting edge information that's brand new.
II
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. I
MARCH. 1995
Member's News and Comments
Correction: In the last issue of this newsletter your Editor published a
1777 Connecticut £10 treasury certificate as a “new and unpublished
note”. He now knows that it was neither new nor unpublished. Several
C4 members wrote in with the correct attribution, chief among them
being Eric P. Newman, whose communication reads (in part):
“You asked for information about 'A Previously unrecorded
1777 Connecticut Currency Issue’ on p. 40 of Vol. 2, No. 4 of C4.
The item is listed and described in William G. Anderson, The Price of
Liberty (Charlottesville, VA, 1983), p. 1 10 Item CTT 1. I feel that it is
fiscal paper and not currency and for that reason I did not list it in
EPMOA [i.e., Eric's The Early Paper Money of AmericaY'
Your Editor included the item on the strength of a C4 member’s
assurance that it was both currency and unpublished. Needless to say,
early American paper money is among the many areas your Editor has
overlooked in his numismatic education. He learns fast, however, and
won't get caught like that, again!
Your Editor can recommend the Anderson book very highly. He used
it when he cataloged the early American fiscal paper from Patricia
Rideout Nestor's collection which was sold by Bowers & Merena in
their Schenkel Sale (November, 1990). Mrs. Rideout Nestor inherited
the collection from her father Percy L. Rideout. Percy’s was a well
known name to paper collectors in the 1950’s and in 1957 he won the
ana’s Howland Wood Memorial Prize. Anderson catalogued and
illustrated the R.M. Smythe Collection of Revolutionary Debt Certifi-
cates in the second half of the volume. Some of the Rideout items in
the sale went into the Smythe collection. Gene Hessler's book An
Illustrated History ofV.S. Loans, 177^-1898 (Port Clinton, Ohio: BNR
Press, 1988) is another good, related catalogue for fans of fiscal paper
and instruments.
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation of Williamsburg, VA has
announced that Joseph Lasser donated his collection of Continental
Currency notes and earlier paper money to the CNF. Many C4 mem-
bers will know of Joe’s collection, which is the most comprehensive
12
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3. No. I
MARCH, 1995
collection of signers ever assembled. Joe noted that he "...wanted the
collection to be used as a research and teaching resource...”. Colonial
Williamsburg announced that Joe’s collection would become part of
the foundation library’s rare book and manuscript collection and would
be made available for study by scholars and historians.
C4 member NCF of Hunt Valley, Maryland writes to say that he
found the new C4 Newsletter format "...captivating from cover to cover.
Of particular interest were the auction reviews. Please keep these
honest comments coming! Anyway, I’m very excited about the con-
tinued development of the Club and I anticipate years of enjoyable
membership.”
C4 member DC of Salem, South Carolina writes as a new collector to
share an experience that is probably common to many in our hobby
field:
"Like many collectors, I have been fascinated by certain
colonials because of their history, their great variety and differences
due to minting problems, low relative cost compared to rarity and the
need to investigate the details of specific coins compared to Morgan
Dollars which have been researched to death. I have been pleasantly
surprised and pleased to find that colonial buffs (dealers and collectors)
exhibit an enthusiastic attitude with an interest in the history and
details of coins. Most importantly, they have been extremely helpful
even when no monetary gain is evident.
With this background, I want to mention my frustrations with
some of the auction houses... The grading is all over the place. One XF
coin I just picked up looked like it had been laying in the back of a
pickup truck for the last year and was comparable to my almost VF of
the same variety. Which brings up the About Very Fine grade: does
this mean it is a very poor XF, a Fine that is getting somewhere close
to a VF, or is it somewhat better than an AG but not quite in the VF
category?
1 suspect these experiences are not unique to coin collecting.
The good news is that I have strayed into an exciting niche of collect-
ing that rewards you for your efforts. It simultaneously allows you to
develop social interchange with fellow colonial coin buffs, which may
13
raE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3. No. 1
MARCH. 1995
be unique to numismatics...! hope this notes gives you some insight
into the frustrations of a new collector.”
Editor’s reply: I'm sure DC’s feelings and experiences are shared by
many others reading the excerpts from his letter. There's one thing you
can say about collecting colonials, the field is like a fraternity, it’s small
enough for most of us to know each other not only by name and face,
but also by fields of interest and degree of experience. Colonial
collectors as a rule willingly share historical information about coins
with each other. They often share the fruits of hard won information
about coins, like Condition Census date and rarity ratings. Some auc-
tion catalogues can be a good source of information and useful market
data, too. It’s the rare colonial collector who’s secretive and possessive
and only a rotten handful of dealers pervert their responsibility by sell-
ing altered or overgraded coins.
DC asks about the grade "About VF”. Most of us who’ve been
buying/selling/cataloguing colonials for a few years know by "feel”
what an AVF colonial, say, a Miller 1.2-C of 1787, will look like. Like
all mysteries, there’s really nothing mysterious here, once you’ve been
told about it. An AVF coin is one that’s better than a straight Fine but
not good enough for a full VF grade. Paradoxically, an AVF might not
be as nice a coin as a Good Fine, since the latter is, by definition, a
"good” example of what a Fine coin should be. An AVF coin could
simply have more detail remaining than a normal Fine coin, maybe
more than a Good Fine one does, but the AVF grade doesn’t really tell
you anything about the quality of the coin. It could be an AVF with a
deep planchet fissure or ugly color... The AVF grade is sort of a cop
out. A buyer of such a coin should expect to get a coin that’s at least a
straight Fine in terms of sharpness (i.e., wear), maybe even a little bet-
ter than that, but that’s all. Some coins require an intermediate grade
descriptive to do their sharpness grade proper justice. In general,
however, it’s best to approach intermediate grade colonials with a firm
hand on the pocketbook and a newly cleaned magnifying glass.
C4 member MM of Kansas City, Kansas writes to your Editor to offer
his "...congratulations to the staff of 4C on the new format for the
newsletter... Gary Trudgen should also be commended on the fine job
he did with the logo, and Bob Metzger for his work on the graphics.”
N
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3. No. 1
MARCH. 1995
C4 member MM goes on to say that he finds “...the content of the
newsletter exceptional. While I realize the need for technical data, and
historical research, perhaps the heavy-duty stuff should best be left
with the CNL. Collecting should be fun as well as informative, and so
far 4C has been both. ..My favorite segment of the newsletter is “Auc-
tion Reviews”, though it would appear that this is a very sensitive area.
I can understand your concern with standards in the field of catalogu-
ing, but, I can also see where some of the smaller houses would lack
the expertise and resources of the larger firms. Of course, they should
also face up to their mistakes and take the criticism a little more
stoically... You made a good point in the last newsletter about the time
constraints placed on cataloguers. It’s easy to see how mistakes can
occur, especially when working outside of one’s field.”
Then comes the best part of member MM’s letter:
"In regards to your call for best-buy stories, mine, while not
spectacular, did afford me the opportunity to add a scarce variety to
my collection.
One day, while travelling through a small town in Missouri, I
stopped in a baseball card/coin shop to kill some time. After asking the
age-old question: Do you have any colonials.^, I was rewarded with a
box of worn, 19th century British halfpence and tokens. Hoping to
find perhaps a Connecticut copper, I proceeded to examine them.
Near the bottom of the box I spied the reverse of a New Jersey
copper, but with a 1788 date, obviously that of an undertype. The
obverse, in addition to the horse’s head, also contained a partial bust
and Vermont inscriptions. Not being familiar with horses at that time,
I thought the coin was a Maris 56-n. After a hurried consultation with
the Red Book, the dealer sold me the coin for $37.00 Later, I was
delighted to find that the coin was actually a Maris 73-aa struck over a
Vermont RR-19, both fairly scarce coins in their own rights.
The coin is a little porous but the color is pretty decent. It
probably grades somewhere in the Fine range, although there are a
couple of post-striking flaws on the reverse. The really neat part is the
15
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. I
MARCH, 1995
jumble of legends and designs, as there is an abundance of the
undertype visible.
The obverse reads AUCTCAES MON, with the plow handles
of the Jersey transecting the Vermont effigy. The nose of the horse also
appears to be doubled, I don’t know if this is due to a double
strike... The reverse of the coin jumbles the legends of INDE with
UNUM, with the date, shield, and head of Liberty visible. All in all, a
neat little coin and cheap, to boot.
C4 member MM then asks a couple of questions:
"Whatever happened to the book on colonials that you were
writing with Dave Bowers? Has any thought been given to an attri-
bution service within C4?”
In answer to the first question, your Editor can only say that he has not
worked on the book since late 1991 and is not connected with the
project now. To respond to the second, your Editor suggests that C4
members who feel a C4 attribution service would be useful, and are
willing to help underwrite one, should correspond with their local
regional representatives and with President Pietri.
C4 member and Region 8 representative Rob Retz published a tenta-
tive emission sequence for Fugio Cents in the January 15, 1995 issue of
Penny Wise. Rob’s effort relied on the apparent deterioration of the let-
ter F punch in the word FUGIO for much of his sequence. Far be it
from your Editor to review Rob's efforts here, since he has never made
an in depth study of the Fugio’s and thus has no opinion on the subject
worth listening to. Perhaps another C4’er would care to step forward
with an appraisal of Rob’s work?
Incidentally, readers interested in Rob’s article about the cinquefoil on
the Fugio reverse Z, which was published in our last C4 Newsletter^
might wish to read Jim Spilman’s article "More Comments on the
Fugio Cents of 1787” in The Colonial Newsletter (April-June, 1962), seq.
pp. 52-55. There, Jim pretty thoroughly discusses how this die was
made and the elements composing it. In addition, there’s a sharp,
enlarged photograph of an Uncirculated Z reverse specimen which
16
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
V«>1. 3, No. 1
MARCH, 1995
shows the cinquefoils and the four horizontal hatch marks flanking
them.
In the same issue of P-W, C4 member and Region 3 representative
John Griffee offers the latest in his on going series of New Jersey cop-
pers Condition Census and rarity reports. This time, John tackles Maris
1 2-1, one of the "common-ish" No Coulter varieties, finding that it
should be rated as a Rarity-5.
C4 member Buell Ish wrote an insightful “Guest Commentary” about
slabbing, which appeared in the March 27, 1995 issue of Coin World.
Buell points out that the service offered by the slabbers isn’t one
needed by the vast majority of colonial collectors. Buell goes on to note
that businesses that offer unneeded services usually wind up losing
revenue. Buell suggests that the slabbing services find out what colo-
nial collectors really might want from them, and then offer that if they
want their business. Buell leaves it unsaid, but Your Editor wonders
just what product that could possibly be, since he knows a couple of
teenage collectors who could run rings around anyone on the services’
staffs when it comes to colonial coins!
And now for a flagrant personal plug.. .don’t miss Your Editor’s ongo-
ing series of columns in Coin World on John Law and French colonial
coins. The reaction these columns have been getting from dealers
suggests that the columns are serving a worthwhile purpose.
A New Research Study Proposed
A new research study on Washingtonia will soon get underway. Dr.
Charles Smith of the University of Maine, a C4 member and active
collector, has proposed to study the “silver" or "tin” wash found on the
surfaces of some Washington Success tokens (Baker-265-7). Dr. Smith
has access to the x-ray fluorescence spectrometer in the Physics and
Astronomy Department of his university. A series of simple, non-
destructive . and free tests will determine the elemental makeup of the
silver or tin surface coatings on these tokens. Dr. Smith writes to say
that he "...of course would assure specimen contributors complete
anonymity, a copy of the analysis of their token(s), and a copy of
17
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3. No. I
MARCH, 1995
whatever paper or report results from the study. If any C4 members
wish to participate they need only contact your Editor and say so. He
will put them in touch with Dr. Smith. Dr. Smith concludes his letter
by saying he is currently looking into the composition of George 111
contemporary counterfeit halfpence and notes that his future plans
include a survey of Irish gun money, cannon, and bells.
Were Coins Really Scarce in Colonial America?
It’s a commonplace in colonial American numismatics that there was a
severe shortage of coins in daily commerce and trade. Colonists con-
stantly complained about how little coin was found in circulation. It’s
well known that Great Britain actively prohibited the export of specie
coinage to the colonies. She also further limited the colonists’ ability to
augment their coinage stocks by preventing the colonies from having
their own mint. Collectors point to the crude counterfeit halfpence of
the 1700’s as evidence of the need to have some kind of coin to spend,
even fairly obvious fake ones, as evidence of the chronic coin shortage.
Academic economic historians, on the other hand, have a very different
opinion on the subject of coin shortages in the colonies. John
McCusker was one of the first to state that there was no real shortage
of coined money, just a plethora of complaints from colonists who
didn’t have as much as they would have liked. A 1988 Columbia
University Press paperback by Edwin Perkins, entitled The Economy of
Colonial America, argues that there was no shortage of coins in the
colonies, whatsoever, save for the occasional recession during which
specie would be hoarded against rising prices.
Perkins feels that colonists’ complaints about specie shortages were just
grumblings from men who wished they had access to more of what
they already held ample of, gold and silver coins. He notes that
English merchants and farmers made the same sorts of complaints
about coin shortages that their American brothers did, and at the same
time. Instead, Perkins writes quite boldly "The supply of specie was
not deficient in the North Atlantic economies.’’ He goes on to state
"overall, the colonists held about as much gold and silver coins and
18
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3. No. 1
MARCH, 1995
Other forms of money as they demanded." Perkins seems to suggest
that paper currency, state loan office issues, and book credit (i.e., cred-
its given on merchants’ books for bartered goods received against
current and future purchases) all made'up a medium of exchange suf-
ficient for everyday commerce, with coinage supplementing the paper
system. Merchants needing large values for exchange could utilize
sterling bills of credit drawn on London banks.
What may have been in short supply at most times prior to the 1820’s
was small change, coppers and fractional silver coins. Perhaps what the
colonists were complaining about wasn’t a shortage of coins for large
transactions, but one for small market purchases, like a bag or oranges
or a twist of tobacco. Your Editor would be interested in publishing C4
members’ comments on this intriguing subject.
The Dating and Emission Sequence of the Oak and
Pine Tree Coinage of Massachusetts Bay
by
James E. Skalbe
1 believe that the Oak Tree shilling sequence of emission (Noe nos.) is
as follows: N.3, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13 and l4, Noe 3
being the first as it is the only marriage of a circular reverse die and an
octagonal obverse die. The only other dies to show a circular die edge
are those of the Willow Tree series. Together with the fact that the
obverse legend is spaced like a Willow, this shows the Noe 3 to be a
transitional piece from the Willow to the Oak. However, does it also
show the transition from hammer to screw press? Some have argued
that “rocker” dies were used as many pieces are curved or “S” shaped. I
believe these pieces may better be explained by die failure and the
early practice of bending silver coins to produce an amulet to ward off
evil, e.g. “witch pieces".
It is very rare to find a double or multiple struck Oak Tree or Pine
Tree, but it is common on Willows. Undoubtedly the first attempts at
striking coins was met with inexperience using crude equipment.
19
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. I
MARCH. 1995
Unstable circular dies, of probably poor steel, which when hammered
required several blows to bring up the design. Which brings us back to
Noe 3- Was this the first coin to be produced on a "coyning engine”?
It has been assumed that because of superior strike that the Oak Tree
pieces were the first to be produced on a screw press. But when did this
occur?
If we examine all the varieties Oak Tree coinage there are anomalies
which must be explored. The most obvious is the twopence dated 1662
when all other Massachusetts Silver is dated 1652. The twopence dies
(Noe 29-34, plus several intermediate die states) were apparently used
for some time as shown by the many re-workings. But every time the
dies were repaired and/or strengthened the date remained 1662,
showing an intentional use and not just an engraving error.
Is it coincidence that the story Crosby relates about Sir
Thomas Temple informing the King that the tree on the Massachu-
setts coinage was the “royale oak” which had saved his life, occurred in
1662? Another interesting detail on the twopence is the presence of
saplings, or as Noe states "shrubs”, on either side of the trunk of the
tree. Is it also a coincidence that most illustrations of the period (in-
cluding some medallic) show the ‘Toyale oak” as having sprouts or
saplings on either side of the trunk!
Together with the twopence, two threepences (Noe 26 & 27), three
sixpences (Noe 20, 21 & 22), and five shillings (Noe 10, 11, 12, 13 &
14) show these saplings. And most of them show the one on the right
to be larger, which is consistent with "royale oak” illustrations.
From this can we infer that in 1662, upon hearing that
King Charles was perhaps flattered by the discreet token of allegiance
his Massachusetts Colony had retained for him, mintmaster Hull
would try to duplicate as close as possible the “royale oak" on the
coinage?
If having a “royale oak” on its coinage pleased the King and made
things run smoothly for the Bay Colony, why the change to a Pine
Tree? The commercial rivalry between England and Holland had pre-
cipitated a war by 1665. Could it be that the Colony considered Dutch
20
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3. No. I
MARCH, 1995
trade more important and subtlety substituted the “royale oak" with a
commercial pine? Lumber from New England pines was one of the
most important natural resources and commodities that were in con-
stant demand. Why not promote it on the coinage?
If we accept this scenario, then all Oak Trees with saplings or “shrubs"
can be dated to 1662-1665. And perhaps because of its unique nature,
the Oak Tree twopence may have continued to be struck until the dies
completely wore out.
Another anomaly in the Oak Tree series is the presence of rosettes. The
reverse of the Noe 2 shilling has one, as does the reverse of the
twopence. The Noe 16 sixpence has one on both sides, as do all the
threepences (except the Noe 35 obverse). And the Noe 32 “spiny" Pine
Tree (with Oak reverse) sixpence obverse has one also. What do all the
rosetted pieces have in common?
The Noe 2 shilling is the last in a sequence of three
shillings which share a common reverse die (in the order Noe 3> 1, and
2). We have already established that the Noe 3 is the first Oak Tree
and is muled with a left over Willow die or a die manufactured in the
method of the Willows. Coins with trees (Willows) were authorized on
October 19, 1652 and production began that winter with a probable
seven year contract. Even accounting for the fact that ugly worn coins
get circulated (and melted) more, why should Willows be so rare today
even if only minted intermittently for 6 or 7 years? Perhaps they were
not the only pieces minted during this contract! If Noe 3's and Noe I's
were minted toward the end of the contract on a screw press it would
explain the Noe 3 mule and the relatively large quantity of Noe I's
extant.
So what about the Noe 2? I propose that when the contract was
renewed in 1660 the Noe 3,1 obverse die was still usable but a new
reverse was needed. The first die of the new contract was marked with
a rosette. That is what is common to the rosetted coins... they are
"firsts". The Oak twopence was the first twopence and the first to be
dated 1662 (the rosette appears below the date and denomination).
Threepences 23,24,25,26 & 27 are all recuttings of the first threepence
dies and Noe 28 is the first “new" three-pence dies of the 1660 con-
21
FHE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vi>l. 3. No. I
MARCH, 1995
tract (circa 1665). The Noe 16 sixpence was the first set of new dies of
the 1660 contract. And the Noe 32 “spiny" Pine Tree has a rosette
because it is a new sixpence obverse.
If we continue the rosette theory into the Pine Tree series, we have the
Noe 1 shilling, all small shillings (except Noe 28), and threepences
Noe 36 and 37 being “firsts". The emission sequence of large Pine Tree
shillings is as follows: Noe 8, 9, 10, 4, 5, 6, 7, 2, 3, 1 1, and 1, Noe 1
being the first new set of dies for the 1675 contract. Then the small
planchet Pine Tree shillings that have two rosettes, obverse and
reverse, [new design (introduction of letter and numeral punches)/ new
size] with a sequence as follows: Noe 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 15 ,30 and 29, with Noe 27 and 28 clandestine end of
production pieces and Noe 14, 13, 31, and 12 counterfeits of the
period.
PROPOSED NEW CHRONOLOGY FOR
MASSACHUSETTS SILVER
May 26, 1652 NE coinage authorized.
May-October, 1652 NE Coinage: shillings, sixpences, threepences.
October 19, 1652 Tree coinage authorized (Willow Tree).
1653-1658
1658-1659
1660
Willow Tree coinage: shillings, sixpences,
and threepences.
New technology: (“Coyning Engine"/better
dies), first Oak Tree coinage, Noe 3 and 1
shillings, Noe 17 & 18 sixpences, Noe 23
and 24 threepences.
New contract.
1660-1662
Noe 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 shillings, Noe 16
sixpence, Noe 25 threepence.
22
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
V«|. 3, No. I
MARCH. 1995
1662-1665
1665-1666
1667
Noe 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 shillings, Noe 20, 21,
22 sixpences, Noe 26, 27 threepences, the
twopences.
First Pine Tree coinage introduced, Noe 8, 9,
10 Pine Tree shillings, Noe 32 sixpence,
Noe 28, 35 Oalc Tree threepences, and the
Oak Tree twopences.
New contract.
1667-1675
1675
1675-1682
May 12, 1682
1682-1683
(1675-1700)
Pine Tree shillings Noe 4, 5, 6, 7, 2, 3,
1 1, Noe 33, 33a, sixpences, Noe 36, 37,
34, 35 threepences. Oak twopences.
New contract.
Noe 1 large planchet shilling, Noe 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
15, 30, 9 small planchet shillings.
Contract expired.
Clandestine end of run, Noe 27,28 shillings.
Counterfeits of the period, shillings Noe 14,
13, 31, PR, 12, 1.
The story to follow first appeared as a special feature in this month’s
Coin World. Your Editor has reprinted it here in case C4 members who
do not subscribe to CW missed it. There are a few, new, ideas on the
subject in the story to follow, as well.
23
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
VoL 3. No. I
MARCH, IW5
Massachusetts Silver Coins Yield
Some of Their Secrets
In 1632 , the colony of Massachusetts Bay decided to strike its own
coins. Thirty years later, the Bay Colony ceased minting silver. During
that short time span some of the most famous of all early American
coins were struck. Some of them, the Large Planchet Pine Tree Shil-
lings, for example, have become symbols of colonial America to a
much wider audience than just coin collectors. Curiously, all but one of
the coins struck by the Bay Colony were dated 1652 (the Oak Tree
Twopence was dated 1662), even though the coins were actually
struck over a 30 year period.
Why did the Bay Colony decide in 1652 that the time was right to
strike its own silver coins? Why not 1651 or 1653, or some other ear-
lier or later date? What happened in 1652 that would lead the colony
to decide that coining its own silver was an idea whose time had come?
Why were all but one of the coin types dated 1652 even though we
know that most of the coins were actually struck years later?
What happened thirty years later that made the colony stop coining?
Were the two dates related in some way? Did something start hap-
pening in 1652 but stop around 1684?
Over the years, several different answers to these questions have been
proposed. None of them has been entirely accurate, even the earliest
one. However, the answers to all of these questions are really very
simple. All we need to do to find them is to read a little colonial Mas-
sachusetts history. Numismatic historians can be very short-sighted at
times. Without knowing something about the bigger historical pic-
ture, of which numismatic history is just a very small part, numismatic
historians often fail to find what they're looking for simply because
they don't know to look in the right places!
The first and earliest reason given for why the Bay Colony started
coining in 1652 can be read in the diary kept by the very man who
struck the coins for Massachusetts, Mint Master John Hull. Hull wrote
24
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. I
MARCH, 1995
that ' ' ...Upon occasion of much counterfeit coin brought in the coun-
try, and much loss accruing in that respect (and that did occasion a
stoppage of trade), the General Q)urt ordered a mint to be set up..."
[the General Court was the government of the colony). So, here we
have the man who made the coins writing in his private diary that the
reason the Bay Colony started making coins in 1652 was that there
were so many fake coins in circulation the government decided it had
better make its own, real ones.
This was the reason accepted by Sylvester S. Crosby, who wrote what's
still the best introduction to colonial coins and their histories {The Early
Coins of America y 1875). But, this reason still really begs the question.
Counterfeit coins did not suddenly appear in Massachusetts starting in
1652. They were around earlier, too. The number of counterfeit silver
coins in circulation in 1652 undoubtedly appeared to be a serious
problem for the economic health of the Bay Colony. Hull's reason for
why the mint was started is probably correct, so far as it goes. But,
there must have been some other, underlying motivation for starting a
mint in 1652 that hadn't existed earlier, when counterfeit coins were
also a problem.
Seventy five years after Crosby's book, Sidney P. Noe introduced a new
and romantic notion about why the Boston Mint was founded. Noe
was curator at the American Numismatic Society and he had studied
the Bay Colony's coins at great length, publishing several booklets on
them. His catalogue listings, with their ' ' Noe numbers", have become
the standard indexing system for the coinage, supplanting Crosby's
more difficult (but more flexible) numbering system.
In 1950, Noe wrote ' 'The initiation of the coinage was very well
timed. [The English King] Charles was executed on January 30, 1649.
The defeat of the royalist forces under Charles II at Worcester took
place on September 3, 1651." Noe goes on to say that the Massachu-
setts Bay colonists believed that the protestant Oliver Cromwell, who
had defeated the Catholic Charles I and II, would be more lenient with
co-religionists than would the old. Catholic, kings. Noe felt that the
Bay Colony decided that they could get away with setting up their
own mint in 1652 because the king was dead and the new military
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vf^. 3, No. 1
MARCH. 1995
Strongman was on their side. Noe even went so far as to suggest that
setting up the mint in Boston had received Cromwell s covert support
and approval and that all records mentioning this support were later
destroyed in a kind of ' ' Bostongate" cover up.
Noe made a bold attempt at placing the Bay Colony's numismatic
history into the broader picture of English political history. He was
really the first numismatic historian to do so and it was undoubtedly
his training in classical studies that gave him his wider perspective.
Unfortunately, like most educated men of his generation, Noe was an
Anglophile and he tended to see his own country's colonial history
through spectacles made in England, so to speak! This historical myo-
pia left unanswered some questions that Noe never felt comfortable
with. Chief among these was why the return of Charles II to the
English throne in 1660 did not lead to an immediate end to the Bay
Colony's coinage? If Massachusetts thought they could get away with
coining in their own name after his father's execution, what made them
think they could keep up the business after the vengeful son had
returned to power? Yet keep it up they did, all through Charles II's
reign and nearly to the bitter end. Noe never came to terms with the
corollary to his reason for why the Bay Colony started coining. In fact,
none of his forebears or contemporaries did, either.
Is there another, better, reason for why the Bay Colony began striking
its own coins in 1652? There is, and we can start with Crosby on our
way to finding it.
In 1678, Edward Randolph was appointed collector of customs at
Boston. He arrived in Massachusetts only to find that no one wanted
to pay customs duties on goods they imported into Boston. Randolph
soon found himself ostracized and with good reason. No one likes a tax
collector, especially not one who takes his job seriously. In 1682, Ran-
dolph sent a series of reports back to England, complaining about the
Bay colonists and how they wouldn't obey the king's laws concerning
customs duties, among other things. Randolph was an angry man and
perhaps a bit vindictive, too. But he was also a perspicacious fellow
who saw through the political spin doctors of the time to the heart of
the matter.
26
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
VoL 3. No. I
MARCH, 1995
Randolph found in the Bay Colony a danger to royal authority on the
continent of North America. Not just a rebellious colony that wouldn't
pay its fair share of taxes. Rather, a colony that had abrogated its
charter, usurped royal prerogatives, and was engaged in imperialistic
aggression for domination of the whole of the northeastern part of
America, from Albany, New York in the west to Cape Cod in the east.
New York City in the south to Newfoundland in the north.
Randolph wrote home to England saying ''Asa mark of soveraignty
they coin mony, stamped with inscription, ' Massachusets', with a tree
in the center, on the one side, and ' New England', with the year 1652,
and the value of the piece, on the reverse. All the money is stamped
with these figures, 1652, that being the era of the common-wealth,
wherein they erected themselves into a free state, enlarged their
dominions, subjected the adjacent colonies under their obedience, and
summoned deputies to sit in the general court; which year is still
commemorated on their coin."
Randolph's witness may not have been entirely uninspired by personal
motives, so any good historian would ordinarily use evidence like his
with a careful degree of caution. However, in his case, we have external
validation of what he wrote home to Charles II.
Every schoolboy knows that Massachusetts was founded by puritans
seeking to escape persecution in England. We are all taught that the
puritan founders of the Bay Colony attempted to establish a govern-
ment that they considered a holy manifestation on earth of god's will in
heaven. What we tend to forget is just how intolerant the puritans
were towards non-puritans, and how special they felt themselves to be.
Their religion was to be protected and fostered by their government.
Anyone not believing as they did were outcasts and enemies.
Their religious exclusivity manifested itself in political and military
aggression against their neighbors, starting with the indigenous
inhabitants around the environs of Boston. Within 20 years of estab-
lishing themselves in Massachusetts, the puritan government was
extending its sway over its neighbors. In 1643, the major towns of
New Hampshire (Portsmouth, Exeter, and Hampton) conceded their
sovereignty and acknowledged Massachusetts' authority over them.
27
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH. 1995
The following year, puritan governor Winthrop wrote that ' ' ...ours is
a perfect republic. ..subject. ..to no other power but among ourselves...".
Massachusetts, Winthrop wrote, considered itself independent by vir-
tue of its charter, ' ' ...in cases of juridicature, yet not in point of state."
If Winthrop conceded that Massachusetts was not wholly a sovereign
state in 1644, two years later he would have changed his mind
entirely. When Robert Child criticized the Bay Colony for religious
discrimination and for failure to observe the laws of England, the
Massachusetts General Court replied ' " Our allegiance binds us not to
the laws of England any longer than while we live in England, for the
laws of the parliament of England reach no further, nor do the king's
writs under the great seal."
On May 31, 1652, the General Court ruled that Maine was henceforth
part of the Bay Colony. Six months later, the Maine towns of Kittery
and York surrendered to Massachusetts. Also in May, 1652, the Gen-
eral Court authorized Mint Master John Hull to assay and mint the
NE silver issues, Massachusetts' first coins. On October 19, 1652, the
General Court ordered that Massachusetts' coins henceforward were to
be round and to have a tree and the 1652 date on them. Ten days
later, Massachusetts declared itself an independent commonwealth,
subject to no allegiance or laws but her own.
It should be clear from this that the Massachusetts silver coinage was
one, small, part of puritan Massachusetts' belief in its independence
from England and its determination on hegemony over the northeast-
ern part of North America. By 1652, the Bay Colony ruled directly
over New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. An independent
state requires its own coinage, for coinage is a universal symbol of sov-
ereignty. Massachusetts decided to strike its own coins in 1652 because
it was independent and deserved its own money. True, the problem of
counterfeits was there. True, there was no king on the throne in 1652.
But those observations had been true of 1649, 1650, 1651, 1653,
1654, etc. etc. They were not the real, fundamental, reasons for the
Bay Colony striking its own coins in 1652. The real reason was the
colony's desire for self aggrandizement at the expense of its neighbors,
its religious bigotry and self delusional irredentism, and its belief in its
own earthly sovereignty. For all his own extreme views, Edward Ran-
28
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH, 1995
dolph hit the nail on the head when he wrote that the coins were
struck ' ' as a marke of soveraignty".
Randolph also partly discovered why most of the coins were dated
1652. He stated that 1652 was chosen because of ' ' that year being
the era of the common-wealth, wherein they erected themselves into a
free state...". This is almost perfectly correct. Crosby got it better than
Randolph. Crosby wrote that the date 1652 was chosen for all but the
Oak Tree Twopences because 1652 was the date that the Shilling,
Sixpence, and Threepence denominations were first authorized by an
act of the General Court. The Twopenny denomination wasn't autho-
rized until 10 years later, in 1662, so it bore the date of the act that
enabled its striking.
The old story that 1652 was first chosen as the date for the coinage to
pretend that the coins were made when there was no king on the
throne, and that therefore those who made the coins shouldn't be
charged with the crime of violating royal prerogative, just doesn't hold
up anymore. This is what the current edition of the Gui^ie Book says
and it's simply inaccurate. The date 1652 was chosen for other reasons,
ones we have already seen. And anyway, if the General Court wanted
to conceal a violation of royal rights by maintaining the fictional 1652
date on its coins, why, then, did it choose 1662 for the Twopence,
when there was a king on the throne who would likely get angry about
it? Even Noe, who subscribed to this silly theory, had to write ' ' Why
1652 continued to be used and what the colonists thought of this
repeated prevarication has never been satisfactorily explained." Now it
has been!
If the reason for starting coining in 1652 proved surprisingly difficult
for numismatic historians to find, and the reason for keeping to the
1652 date also stumped some of the best of them, then the reason why
the coinage continued for so long after royal government was re-
established in England in 1660 should not have been tough to
discover. The answers are in Crosby and have been for more than a
century! Where Noe created a romantic story of puritan solidarity to
account for the 1652 start date, others spun even more fanciful stories
to account for its continuance past l660.
29
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH, 1995
The best of these stories is also in Crosby (where so much that is useful
can be found). The story goes that during a council meeting someone
showed Charles II an Oak Tree shilling and told the thirty-year old
king that his subjects in Massachusetts had usurped his royal authority
by coining silver in the name of their colony. Charles became enraged
at the breach of royal prerogative but before he could order that the
coinage be stopped Sir Thomas Temple spoke up. Temple was a sup-
porter of the Bay Colony. He told the king that the oak tree on the
coin's obverse was a representation of the tree in which Charles had
safely hidden after the Battle of Worcester in 1651. Temple said that
the colonists had put the tree on the coin as a mark of their happiness
at the king's safety. Hearing this, Charles' anger cooled, council busi-
ness moved on to other topics, and Massachusetts' coinage was saved.
It's a nice story, the sort we tell our children at bedtime, but it's not
history. It doesn't seem to go back much further than the 1760's,
either, so the events it purports to describe were already a century old
before their first telling. Besides the fairy tale nature of the story is the
well known fact that Charles II didn't like to be reminded of his terri-
fying flight from England after the defeat at Worcester. If the story
were true, the Bay colonists would have been wiser having a portrait of
the king on their coins instead of a memento of his defeat!
The real story is quite different. Before the restoration of royal gov-
ernment, Massachusetts' coinage was largely uncontested by England.
Cromwell's government may have taken a more relaxed attitude
towards such breaches of sovereignty. After all, Cecil Calvert was
allowed to continue coining in his own name in 1659, and he was a
Catholic and lived close to hand in London, to boot. After Charles II
regained his throne, in 1660, measures began to be taken to curb
Massachusetts' independence. There was no ignorance of the coinage in
England and no easy surrender of royal prerogative on the spinning of
a pretty tale. It took bribes to stave off the inevitable, but ineluctable it
was. Sooner or later, Charles II and his ministers were going to order
an end to the coinage.
In May, 1665 Charles* commissioners ordered that Massachusetts
repeal its laws that authorized the Boston Mint and its silver coins. A
successful bribe to the king the following year held off royal displea-
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. I
MARCH, 1995
sure a while longer. In 1678 the General Court wrote the king saying
they were being defamed by ill-wishers and protested that the Court
had set up their own mint solely for the convenience of his majesty's
customs collectors! The same story was repeated in 1682, on the occa-
sion of another investigation, but by then the Boston Mint was close to
its end (if not already there) and so was the Bay Colony's charter.
So far as we know, coinage in the Boston Mint continued into the early
l680's. No one knows the exact date it was stopped, but everyone
agrees why it finally ceased. In June, 1683, the English crown ordered
the governor and company of Massachusetts Bay to show by what
right they exercised their general authority in the colony. Six months
later, in January 1684, a commission studying Massachusetts' silver
coins found them to be of good silver but light weight. Six months
after that, the crown demanded that the General Court show by what
right the colony had passed certain laws, including the one that had
authorized a mint in 1652. On June 21, 1684, the English Court of
Chancery annulled the Bay Colony's charter and Massachusetts became
a royal colony. Royal governors were appointed, starting with Joseph
Dudley in 1685 and Sir Edmund Andros the following year. Since
minting silver was strictly a royal prerogative, once the Bay Colony
became a royal colony minting silver coins necessarily became
unthinkable.
Massachusetts' legacy of independence and its own coinage did not die
out in 1684. When Sir Edmund Andros arrived to take over the
colony's government in 1686, he carried with him a brief giving far
wider powers than any puritan Bay Colony governor had hoped to
wield before him. Andros was empowered to assume the governorship
of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, the old independent
Bay Colony's domains. In addition, Andros was to organize a "Domin-
ion of New England", to include his three colonies together with New
York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. It was thought back in London
that this larger political entity would be better able to defend itself
against the French in Canada should war ever break out. Rhode Island
and Connecticut were added later to Andros' governorships. Some 90
years before the independent American colonies recognized that they
would all either stand together or hang together, the English king had
learned the same lesson about his American colonies.
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. I
MARCH, 1995
Massachusetts silver coins, struck from 1652 to about 1682, have
become the aristocrats of early American coins. They are rightly con-
sidered to be the most challenging and most interesting of all of them.
The four major types include over 100 different varieties, ranging from
common to unique coins. No one has ever completed the whole series
and it isn't likely that anyone now living will, either. But, anyone
holding one of these frozen moments of time in his or her hand should
do well to remember that the coin represents a symbol of the first step
along the road that ultimately led towards the independence and lib-
erty we as Americans enjoy today.
The Ludwig Smith Sale: Another View
by
Jeff Rock
Although the last issue of the C4 Newsletter may well be dubbed the
“Auction Review” newsletter, I will have to risk adding to the growing
volume of dead tress devoted to this art form. After reading the review
of McCawley & Grellman's Ludwig Smith auction sale, I was again
struck by the different vantage points offered by a reading of the sale
itself and by examining the coins in person. With that difference, this
review may be seen as a corrective filter to Michael Hodder’s well-
written article.
The first thing to mention, and arguably the most important to
collectors, is the issue of grading. This auction was, by far, the most
conservatively graded of any that I’ve ever seen in a long, long time, by
any auction house. Sure, there were a few examples where the cata-
logue said Fine and I said VG, but far more numerous were the
examples where the catalogue said EF and everyone else thought
Choice AU. The prices realized, certainly reflect that conservative
grading, and collectors and dealers butted heads on just about every
lot, driving some up to record price levels.
32
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. I
MARCH. 1995
Hodder’s criticisms of the cataloguing styles were, in the opinion of
this writer, a bit harsh. Overall, the catalogue was extremely readable
and one got a very accurate picture of what the coin looked like— good
points as well as warts. The latter may seem natural, but it is actually
one of the most difficult things for any auction cataloguer to do, and is
something that all of us who have written an auction description are
capable of ignoring. To say that a coin is ugly or that a coin is attrac-
tive is really what will influence mail bidders, and more often than not
that information can be absent— even if you have fantastic technical
information, die states and historical text!
The few examples of criticisms Hodder listed were correct, though in
some areas understandable. The French Colonies issues are still a
highly debated subject, and although Hodder himself has published
some information on the various issues, one feels that there is much
more out there to find. Perhaps Bob Vlack will actually publish his
work on the Sous Marques and have some evidence that they belong to
the colonial series, proper. Who knows. In that area of uncertainty,
discretion was certainly the better part of valor. The problem with the
New Jersey coppers text was one that this writer has faced many times.
Keeping up with the latest research is difficult, and trying to explain
succinctly dating schemata and the significance of die states and/or
planchet stock in a short description is nearly impossible. Most of the
specialists who care about that information already know it, and per-
haps the best one can do is steer others in the right direction if they’re
interested. Still, many of the myths should not be repeated and hope-
fully the cataloguer of that section will take that part of the criticism
to be constructive. There were a few pieces that were poorly cata-
logued or where important historical information was misconstrued.
Hodder mentions the Rhode Island Ship medal and the Muttonhead
Connecticut copper, both of which were flat out bad jobs of writing.
No arguments from me, and though we all certainly make mistakes
(and this writer is known for making some whoppers), when one sets
him or herself up in a position of intellectual authority— such as an
auction cataloguer— one must expect to be knocked down if the quality
of the work is haphazard. That’s life, get used to it.
Overall, M&G is the most exciting new firm to enter the colonial field,
in any capacity, since the early 1970's, when Pine Tree Auctions was
33
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH, 1995
formed and Walter Breen was allowed sufficient space for descriptions.
None of the “smaller” auction houses (i.e., not Stack's or D&M) seem
to care much for colonials, and are not capable of doing a credible job
with the series. M&G have obviously made a commitment to doing it
right and providing a first class catalogue with wonderful photography
and accurate grading and descriptions. When one looks at the amount
of text given to coins that realized under $100, sometimes even under
$25, it's obvious that the firm isn't going to make much, if any, money
off that sale, and yet they’re ready to do it again! One wonders what
other auction houses would stay in business for the love of the hobby!
As a cataloguer, 1 have seen my writing style change and, hopefully,
grow over time. 1 feel that the cataloguers of the Ludwig Smith sale,
neither of whom had ever written a detailed description for an auction
catalogue before this, will hone their craft and take their places
amongst the best writers in the field today!
Auction Reviews
Stack’s January, 1995 sale had a few lots of colonials all indifferently
catalogued and none worth particular notice.
Coin Galleries’ February, 1995 mail bid sale included several lots of
colonials many of which were "re-treads” from earlier sales. Catalogu-
ing was indifferent at best, poor at worst. Weights were occasionally
given, but not always The highlight of the Coin Galleries’ sale was a
collection of 18th century circulating counterfeit copper farthings and
halfpence. The better pieces, and those historically more interesting,
were plated. The fact that most lots were group lots should suggest to
the insightful reader that the values of these coins were fairly low, to
say the least! The cataloguer (your Editor) suggested that the really
crudely made pieces might be American in origin. This opinion occa-
sioned harsh criticism from one C4 member, who wrote to say that he
felt that just because a die showed crude die work, didn’t automatically
mean that the die was made in America! Your Editor believes that the
cruder the die work the more likely the die was made in America,
since, if the Royal Mint couldn't tell its own die work from that seen
on English made counterfeits, then the English fakes must have been
34
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Voi. 3, No. I
MARCH, 199!
of a high degree of expert die engraving. In addition, your Editor
points to the near contemporary Blacksmith tokens, made in North
America, as parallels. In at least one case, that of William Gilfoil, a
British infantryman and blacksmith at Fort Crown Point in 1773, we
even have the name of a maker of fake halfpence here in America (see
Gary Trudgen’s article on Gilfoil in CNL (July, 1987], seq. pp. 997-
1000 and the comments on seq. p. 1019).
Stack’s March, 1995 sale of the James A. Stack, Sr. collection
includes several highly important colonials. James Stack was a quiet
and private collector not known for an interest in colonial coins (his
real passion was for regular issue U.S. coins, from which he created a
collection that ranks among the best ever formed). However, Stack
was Scots-Canadian by descent and he appears to have had a lively
interest in things Canadian. Consequently, during the 1930’s and
1940’s, Stack put together a small collection of Canadian and other
colonial era coppers and a part of these were included in the March
sale.
None of the James A. Stack colonials had been seen by anyone outside
the family since about 1945 and they were all brand new to the mod-
ern generation of collectors. There was a 1723 D:G:REX Wood’s
Hibernia farthing that was in outstanding condition, for example. Mr.
Stack collected Voce Populi coppers, as well, and his Nelson-2 was one
of the finest this cataloguer had ever seen, as was the Nelson-3 VOOE
specimen, which your Editor described as being "Choice About Uncir-
culated”. The Nelson- 1 1 Long Head with P below bust was a rough
and unattractive piece but with its engrailed edge it was unique and
previously unknown. Two of the Voce Populi lots were misattributed:
lot 1 1 was really a Nelson-8, Zelinka 3-C and lot l4 was really a
Nelson- 15, Zelinka 3-A. A West Virginia collector of the series made
the corrections simply by reading the catalogue descriptions (these lots
were unplated). Lot 13, the very rare Nelson-7, Zelinka 3-F, was so
described but without noting its important rarity. A series of what
Betts described as “Franco- American jetons” was also included and
these were catalogued using Betts numbers for their obverse and
reverse attributions in the cases of mulings. There are several distinc-
tions that can be made between jetons from the same dies that were
struck in or very near to the dates they proclaim, and those that were
35
FHE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH. 1995
restruck later on (but before the Paris Mint began using edge marks to
date their issues). These jetons were not well described in the catalogue
by your Editor. Thanks to help he received from an advanced collector,
j^our Editor can now claim to be able to make these distinctions, as
well.
To your Editor’s mind, the two most important copper tokens in this
lames A. Stack sale were the original 1794 Copper Company of Upper
Canada token and the “1796” Myddelton/CCUC muling. The former
is extremely rare and is missing even from many advanced collections.
The latter is very rare and appears more often than the former. The
CCUC token received a full page description with a lengthy historical
Footnote that, hopefully, will inspire some future researcher to a
reconsideration of the origin of Rochelle Thomas’ reverse die.
Bowers and Merena’s March, 1995 sale (featuring the Herman
Halpern collection of Canadian currency) included about 80 lots of
colonials. The [1688] Holt’s Plantation token with Sideways 4 in
denomination was well catalogued, giving the potential mail bidder all
the data s/he needed to make an informed buying decision. There was
a nice Ryder-9 Vermont, the Baby Head variety, graded Choice VF
but remarkably on a near flaw free flan (these almost always come on
deeply fissured planchets and the flaws are almost always on the effi-
gy’s face, just where you don’t want them!) A good quality Ryder-31
with a very late state reverse was described as “produced at Machin’s
Mills and Choice VF overall and possibly Condition Census. When the
piece appeared earlier in Stack’s September, 1993 sale, it was then
described as “Very Fine/Fine for sharpness” and “presumed to have
been a Machin’s Mills product”. Most of the other copper lots in the
firm’s March sale were undistinguished and were catalogued accord-
ingly.
The highlight of the B&M March sale was the 1792 Getz “Half Dol-
lar” in silver, graded VG to Fine. This specimen had been entirely
unknown to the collecting and research fraternity. It had been passed
down in one family since its first purchase by Eli Hilles, said by the
family to have been in the 1790’s! All silver Getz “Half Dollars”
appear to be overstruck on French ecus and this one may have been,
too, although the cataloguer wasn’t sure enough of the undertype to
36
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
V«»I. 3. No. 1
MARCH, 1995
venture an opinion other than “almost certainly of Spanish... origin”. If
this were true it would be the first such known. Unfortunately, the
edge device which could have settled the issue was not described. This
was an important offering in more ways than one, not the least being
that, now the Lord St. Oswald pedigree has bitten the dust, it is one of
the very, very few American coins of the 1790's that can be securely
pedigreed to within a few years of its striking.
Bowers & Merena’s Armand Champa II sale, also held in Baltimore
in March, included many lots that would interest colonial collectors. A
gorgeous complete set of the AJN bound in red calf was the first lot to
strike your Editor’s fancy. This set had been acquired unbound by
Dave Bowers directly from the American Numismatic Society. Mr.
Champa had slipcases made to house every two volumes, making for a
pleasingly co-ordinated appearance on the library shelf. Among other
lots were a handsome copy of Crosby with the Maris Woodburytype
plate; a fine copy of Thomas Elder’s May 1920 sale of Henry Miller’s
Connecticut coppers; a fine copy of Hall’s manuscript on 1787 Con-
necticut coppers; and finally, a most exciting offering, featuring the
sole surviving set of photographic plates of some of the colonial coins in
Lorin G. Parmelee’s collection (sold in 1890). The catalogue descrip-
tions were done by Charles Davis of Wenham, Massachusetts. C4
members unfamiliar with Charlie should get to know him. He’s editor
of the Numismatic Bibliomania Society’s publication The Asylum and
he has his own bookselling business. Charlie specializes in numismatic
books, auction catalogues, and ephemera and he can help find books
that C4 members may need for their own library. Photographs in the
Champa II catalogue were by Cathy (Dumont) Wilson and, like all the
work she takes pains with, were outstanding. The definition in the
color plates was excellent, for example.
Heritage’s Early Spring 1995 ANA sale contained a few colonial
lots, including what appeared to be decent Noe 1 and Noe 29 Pine
Tree shillings. The rest of the few lots had the feel of an afterthought.
Jeffrey Hoare’s February, 1995 sale of the Roy Hughes collection
of Canadian colonial coins was catalogued by Warren Baker of Mont-
real, a well known collector-dealer whose expertise is of the highest
order and whose experience is long and well earned. The sale included
37
fHE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. J, Nt>. 1
MARCH, 1995
I French 1670 5 sols in bent VF estimated at a reasonable $Can600
md an electrotype of the 1717-Q VI deniers Breton 505, of which no
original is now known. There was also a large collection of jetons, some
of which were clearly Paris Mint restrikes and were so described.
Early American Numismatics March 18, 1995 mail bid sale
included about 250 lots of colonial era coins, medals, and tokens;
along with hundreds of lots of colonial era paper currency. The coins
were essentially unexceptional examples of their types. There’s a 1796
Castorland jeton in copper described as having been “Struck from the
original dies’’ and said to be rarer even than the silver “originals”.
Although the EAN piece had die rust beside the maple pot’s handle,
the cataloguer apparently continues to distinguish “originals” from
“restrikes” by the presence or absence of an obverse die break. He also
notes that restrikes had been made since 1796. Your Editor notes that
the earliest Castorland jetons he has seen are silver pieces with no signs
of die rust on the reverse and a perfectly flat obverse. The “Rare
Washington Inaugural Button” in lot 232 is actually an example of
Alpert-18 or 19 (they may be the same) and is rare. There’s a very
instructive Maris 66-v in lot 155 described as ex Spiro and H. Garrett
sales and subsequently “expertly restored”. Collectors are advised to
compare the plate of how this coin looks now with its original appear-
ance in the plate of lot 1432 in Bowers & Merena's sale of the Henry
Garrett collection (March, 1992). Finally, it’s heartening to see that
EAN has become somewhat more conservative in its attributions of
coins as “French colonials”.
Rosa Americana, Ltd.'s Fixed Price List #10 (Spring, 1995) con-
tains Jeff Rock’s largest and most diverse offering of colonial coins,
medals, and tokens so far. There are nearly 450 lots, each minutely
described by one of the best cataloguers of colonial coins we have (this
reviewer could have used more die state information, ’though). Jeff
pays careful attention to details such as color, surfaces, strike quality
vs. characteristics typical of the variety, surface flaws and/or damages,
and so on. Most mail bidders should have little difficulty forming a
mental picture of the lots offered, based solely on the written descrip-
tions. That’s a lot more service than almost any other cataloguer in this
business can claim to provide. Grading, of course, is a personal matter,
and everyone will want to make up his or her own mind about this
38
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH. 1995
aspect of the descriptions.
Jeff s new fixed price list contains many colonial rarities, not limited to
a Sommer Islands twopence (for those who track Sommers Islands
coins, your Editor’s sister is a student at Oxford and she saw and pho-
tographed the twopence in the Ashmolean; it was also plated in The
Numismatist y October 1985, p. 1962); Connecticut coppers such as
1785 M. 7.2-D, 1787 16.4-n, 1787 28-n, 1787 33.17-r.5, 1787 and
33.25-W.3; an extremely rare Massachusetts Cent, Ryder 12-H, a
variety which appears never to have been offered at a public sale
before; an excellent collector’s selection of Fugio Cents all meticulously
described in more than usual detail; and Mott, Auctori
Plebis/Hispaniola tokens, and finally, a rare early state Georgius Tri-
umpho token described as Choice AU.
Unlike nearly all other cataloguers around, Jeff knows both his rarities
and his numismatic history. His descriptions often don’t fail to take
into account the latest numismatic research no matter how obscure or
narrowly defined. Consequently, collectors can usually rely on his
statements about rarity ratings and numismatic background. Of
course, the occasional rap on the numismatic knuckles is needed, but
at least with Jeff he takes his licks with grace. Your Editor only wishes
that other, much larger, coin companies would take note of Jeffs
practise and follow it in their own cataloguing. Both Jeff, and his fel-
low Californian Tom Rinaldo (of Yesteryear Coins) set fine examples
for the rest of us to follow when describing colonial coins for sale.
There are one or two coins in Jeff s sale that will be seen as controver-
sial by many colonial specialists. In order of sale these include a 1766
Pitt token with what is described as “full silvering’’; and a 1787 Maris
56-n New Jersey copper described as on a "no questions asked brass
planchet” which Jeff suggests was a planed down Louis XV sol, a
curious coin on two counts, since the Jersey coiners usually didn’t
bother to hide their undertypes and a sol is supposed to be a copper
coin which would look brown. Your Editor will say nothing about the
electrotypes and struck copies offered in the list, since they are all
carefully described and weighed and there’s little chance they could
ever be passed off as real coins since they’re so well recorded.
39
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH, 1995
C4 Convention Questionnaire
Please take a moment to fill this out and mail it back to:
Angel O. Pietri
1560 Manchester Blvd.
Fort Myers, FI. 33919
1) Do you plan to attend the convention.^
Yes No
2) Would you attend a reception on Thursday night ( 10/19/95 ),
if it cost $20.00? Yes No
if it cost $30.00? Yes No
3) Would you be interested in purchasing a commemorative token,
in copper ( ~ $5.00 ) Yes No
in silver ( ~ $12.00 ) Yes No
4) Would you be interested in a hard bound copy of the Auction
catalogue ( $50 )?
Yes No
5) Do you plan to exhibit at the convention?
Yes No
Subject ?
6) Are you willing to be a convention sponsor?
Yes No Amount
Thank you for taking the time to fill this out!
40
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH, 1995
FIRST C4 ANNUAL CONVENTION
OCTOBER 20-22, 1995
Pennsauken, NJ
1 -Bourse and Exhibits
2- John Griffee Collection Sale
3- 3rd New Jersey Symposium
4- Other educational presentations
Don't miss it. For more details, see your President's message in this
Newsletter.
Further bourse information and contracts will be
available at the Club table at EAC in Cincinnati,
or contact Angel Pietri or Dennis Wierzba
4l
THE C4 NEWSLETTER
Vol. 3, No. 1
MARCH. 1995
S^mcricana £^tcC,
P.O. Box }447
San Diego, California 92163
(619) 280-6737
Proudly Announces Fixed Price List No. 10
Offered to CoConiaC CoCCectorsi
Our largest and most ambitious list to date, with over 425 lots of
colonial coins, tokens, and medals! Type coins are well represented,
starting with a Sommer Islands twopence, through a nice selection of
Massachusetts silver and pre-Confederation issues, including an origi-
nal Higley copper, as well as a large run of post-Confederation issues
which include a Bar Cent among many rare token issues. The
Washingtonia section includes numerous rarities, such as the third
known Halliday medal in white metal with engine turned rims as well
as some superb electrotypes of the rarer issues. The state coinage is one
of the largest fixed price list offerings ever, with over 175 Connecticut
coppers (including many rarities and well pedigreed pieces) and with
Condition Census and rare varieties in every state coinage series! The
Fugio offering contains an impressive 27 different varieties! If you
aren't on our mailing list (or haven’t received your copy of our List No.
10 by the time you receive this C4 issue), please call or write us at the
above number and address for your FREE copy.
42
Region 5 ; (OK, TX, NM, AZ, ID, WO, CO, MT, UT, NV, Mexico)
Mary Sauvain
Region 6 : (CA, HA)
Tom Rinaldo
Region 7 : (WA, BC)
Bill McKivor
Region 8 ; (OR)
Rob Retz
C4 Appointed Officers
Newsletter Editor: Michael Hodder Librarian: Steve Tanenbaum
CompuServe Network Regional Representative: Bijan Anvar
Articles for the C4 Newsletter should be sent to the Editor at the above
address. Articles should be submitted in ASCII (DOS Text), WP6.0b
(DOS), DeScribe 5.0 (OS/2), or MaeWrite (Macintosh) format on 3.5"
diskettes. A printed, hardcopy version should also be included. All articles
will be subject to editing without consultation with the author, except in
case of technical verification of facts. Authors retain copyright and grant
C4 one time NA rights of reproduction, only (except in the case of an
anthology or reprint). All art work and illustrations for articles must be the
property of the sender and must be appropriately captioned. Do not send
color photographs. No illustration will be returned unless specifically
requested and accompanied by a SASE.
COLOiV/
O'
o
COLi^p
o
V
/
f’OjJNDEO
CLUfi
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11